Community Capacity and Governance – New Approaches to Development and Evaluation

This work looks at the concept of community capacity and how it can be advanced toimprove governance. The main concepts explored here, related to community capacity, arecommunity, social capital, and community capacity building.

The importance of broadening the view of development beyond economic development isdiscussed in this work as being both a moral imperative to reduce poverty and a smart way toapproach global and local governance. The areas of economic development and povertyalleviation are addressed, as well as alternative development with a special focus on rural andcommunity development. The main concepts are discussed in context of their relationship tohuman development and poverty alleviation, being most closely associated with the paradigm ofalternative development.

Major components of public administration are also addressed in this work, focusing ondecentralization, localization, democracy, and participatory governance. Tools to improvegovernance are also discussed, including the logic framework, the policy management cycle, andevaluation.

The epistemological approach employed here focuses on post-modernism and postpositivismand focuses highly on qualitative research. The research contained in this work ismostly derived from case study analysis and employs data gathering techniques such asinterviews, surveys, focus groups, and various forms of observation.

The academic contribution of this work is twofold, concept progression and methoddevelopment. First, this work develops the concept of community capacity that was introducedby Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh, and Vidal (2001) by amending and clarifying the terminology inthe framework and employing a more useable and easily understandable model called the A-A-Aframework. The A-A-A framework is developed through case studies on rural revitalization inJapan and the assessment of community capacity using the framework in Pagudpud, Philippines.

The definition of community is expanded to include the local government and allstakeholders, as well as to define the parameters of larger communities, such as the internationalcommunity. Additionally, two newly adapted concepts are postulated to further addressalternative development and community capacity building. They are community-driveneconomics and community leadership.

The concept of localization is also clarified, particularly in terms of the localization inevaluation. This is done through the analysis of various efforts to localize evaluation throughJICA trainings and a project for MDG localization in the Philippines. Issues with evaluation indeveloping countries are surveyed through analysis of the technocrats that were involved inevaluation training in Japan. The identification of these issues led to some proposals forimproving evaluation including a focus on assets, qualitative measures, participation, andguiding concepts.

Regarding method development, two methods of non-traditional participatory evaluation,participatory photo evaluation and participatory video evaluation, were created to further explorecommunity capacity. Using trial cases in Pagudpud, the methods were developed to ensureproper data gathering and to render information that is useable for local public administration.These unique methods combine action research, participatory research, concept-drivenevaluation, and the use of non-traditional media and have the benefit of providing data for betterlocal governance and being a community capacity building tool.

Page 12

Page 13

1. Introduction

In the wake of the industrial revolution, a vast discrepancy emerged between developednations and those who were yet to be developed. This ever-growing discrepancy has beenthe source of strife and conflict across the globe and has garnered a call for thedevelopment of all nations. Development is no easy task and its paradigms, financing, andpractical execution are constantly under scrutiny and up for debate. However, the demand forpeace and harmony, as well as for human progress and the continued success of globaleconomics has not ceased; thus development is continually pursued on multiple levels.

Through the pursuit of global capitalism, entrepreneurs are constantly seeking innovativeproducts, new markets, accessible labor sources, and readily available resources. This is takingbusiness out of the modernized world and into places that are yet to be developed. In regards toboth ethics and sustained profitability, it is of interest for global capitalists to promote andotherwise be involved in the development process. This is because if a community of interesthas a poor infrastructure, political strife, issues with human rights and social freedoms thenextracting the desired resource, product, or service becomes difficult and ethically questionable.Therefore, business and political actors alike have an economic and moral imperative to becommitted to development.

A new outlook on development began to emerge in the late 20th century, when a shift from anemphasis on economic indicators to a more comprehensive vision of social developmentemerged. Standard of living began to play a more important role in the formulation andexecution of development initiatives at the local, national, and international levels. Examples ofthis trend include the adoption of the United Nations Development Program’s (UNDP) multiindicatorHuman Development Index (HDI) and various commissioned Human DevelopmentReports (HDR), as well as the ambitious and multi-sectoral Millennium Development Goals(MDG) (Anan, 2000). As Amartya Sen (1999) argues, development cannot simply be assessedby economic measures alone, and specifically not by aggregate economic figures.

Social capital can be thought of as the ‘missing link’ of development (Gittell & Vidal, 2002).It is a key component of capacity and capacity development strategies for the betterment of thecommunity and to facilitate participatory governance. Community capacity is one way thatsocial capital within a given area can be identified, explored, and promoted. Through identifyingthe characteristics of community capacity and devising strategies to build community capacity,communities can better reach their potential, leaders and residents can be better informed abouttheir community and ownership of the community situation begins to emerge to facilitate furtherdevelopment.

1. Research Problem and Questions

The main issues that have been identified in this work include the growing discussion oncommunity capacity in development dialogue, a greater emphasis on a more holistic approach todevelopment, the lagging questions about the concepts of social capital and community capacity,and the greater responsibilities for service delivery and development strategies that are beingundertaken by decentralized authorities. These problems are explained more fully in thefollowing paragraphs.

The change in development paradigms, more notably seen since the Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Action Committee (DAC)

13

Page 14

agreed to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and the 2008 DAC High LevelMeeting where donors agreed to use local goods and service (see Managing for DevelopmentResults, 2007), has brought about greater emphasis on capacity development and localization.This work proceeds with the shared problem in mind of the international development field;there needs to be more emphasis on partnership and ownership for capacity building and thenecessity for a more holistic approach to community capacity development. It is unlikely thatonly one universal model of poverty alleviation can be formulated (Paugam, 2002, p. 94), but theassessment of community capacity and the design of contextualized strategies to build itincorporated into local policy structure can add to the effectiveness of development and povertyalleviation policy.

Although social capital has been identified as the missing component of development, thereis little understanding of the ways in which social capital and capacity can be identified, built,and sustained. Some progress was made by incorporating social capital considerations into arelational framework for community capacity, as seen in the book Building Community Capacityby Robert J. Chaskin, Prudence Brown, Sudhir Venkatesh and Avis Vidal (2001). However, theframework has not been fully explored in relation to rural development and its relevance indeveloping communities has yet to be identified. Additionally, the concept of neighborhood, theunit of analysis for community capacity for Putnam (1993, 2000) and Chaskin and colleagues(2001), is too limiting for the framework to be widely utilizable. Therefore, an expansion of theconcept of community is necessary in conjunction with clarifying the components of theframework to improve its ability to analyze a community in context.

Decentralization has made the role of the lower level administrator more important,especially in relation to the involvement of the community and participatory practices. Thegovernment partnership activities that accompany participatory governance and decentralizedauthority rely heavily on the ability of the community to respond to these activities, indeed, itrelies on the capacity of the community. According to B. Guy Peters in The Future of Governing(2001), participatory governance requires a population of clients who can articulate theirdemands effectively, a collection of organizations that are concerned with delivering holisticservices, and relies on the willingness of the citizens to become active participants in thepolitical and administrative processes. Building community capacity can help a community toidentify the assets that they posses and facilitate participation, effectively communicate theirneeds and desires, provide better services, and overcome adversity.

Furthermore, decentralized authorities have a need for consistent administrative andevaluation systems in order to better serve their constituents and meet their policy outcomes. Itis clear the many evaluation systems are in need of reform; however there is no consistent way toidentify issues in evaluation systems.

In order to examine the problems the following questions are posed:1. What are the conceptual components of community capacity and how can they be further

developed? (Chapters Two, Chapter Five)2. What is the relationship between community capacity and human development and

poverty alleviation? (Chapter Two)3. How is a community defined and how can it be understood practically? (Chapter Five)4. What are some of effective strategies for community capacity building? (Chapters Two,

Chapter Five, Chapter Seven)5. How can community capacity be identified in context? (Chapters Five, Chapter Seven,

Chapter Eight)

14

Page 15

6. In what ways can the community capacity framework be refined to better fit the situation

in developing communities? (Chapters Five, Chapter Seven)7. How do community capacity attributes contribute to the cycle of community capacity?

(Chapter Five)8. How do community agents and their leadership contribute to the development of

community capacity? (Chapter Five)9. What is localization of evaluation and why is it important? (Chapter Six)10. What are some ways that localization is being undertaken? (Chapter Six)11. How can community capacity building strategies be integrated into a community-level

policy structure? (Chapter Seven)12. What does community capacity mean in the context of a developing community?

(Chapter Seven, Chapter Eight )13. Can the community capacity framework be developed into an assessment tool? (Chapters

Seven, Chapter Eight)14. How can evaluation be more participatory? (Chapters Six, Chapter Eight)

These questions are addressed throughout this work; however the most relevant chapters arenoted after each question.

2. Objective

The objective of this dissertation is twofold. The first goal of this work is to fortify andexpand some concepts related to community, development and public administration. The mainfocus is on the progression of the concept of community capacity, particularly in terms of itsrelevance to developing rural communities in Asia. Other concepts that are expounded uponhere include community, community leadership, community-driven economics, localization, andevaluation. The second aim of this work is the introduction and conceptual design of themethods of participatory photo and video evaluation, as well as the incorporation of the conceptof community capacity into an assessment.

3. Significance

The significance of this work in relation to its contribution to conceptual development lies inthe importance of incorporating the concepts of community, community capacity, communityleadership, community-driven economics, and localization into public management throughevaluation and intervention strategies. By doing so, poverty alleviation, rural development, andcommunity development initiatives become more effective and sustainable.

The contribution of this work in terms of the development of the methods of participatoryphoto and video evaluation is significant because of the uniqueness of combining non-traditionalcommunication mediums with an evaluative framework and purpose, as well as their practicalapplications for public administration and community capacity building.

Furthermore, this work adds to the dialogue on action research, community capacity,community and rural development, evaluation, governance, and participatory methods.

4. Conceptual Framework

15

Page 16

The two main objectives of this work are interrelated as the revamped concepts lay thefoundation for the development of the new methods, forming the guiding framework for theirexecution; thus examining them in context. Community is the unit of analysis for the case studyand evaluation projects, while community capacity is the analytical framework. Below, inFigure 1, is a model to help illustrate the overall conceptual framework for this dissertation.

Figure - Conceptual Framework

Source: Author

As can be seen in the conceptual framework model, the trends in administration such asgovernance, decentralization and localization, as well as evaluation are the practical backgroundof this dissertation. The theoretical background of development, community, and social capitalhelp to contribute to the concept of community capacity. The concept of community capacity isthen examined through case studies in Japan and the Philippines and modified in the A-A-A(Attributes-Agents-Action) Community Capacity Cycle Model (see Chapter Five). Consideringthe necessities of the current administrative trends, the A-A-A model is used to guide thedevelopment of the non-traditional participatory evaluation methods that will contribute toparticipatory governance in terms of increased policy effectiveness and increased accountability,and to community capacity building in terms of leadership development, community dialogueand activation.

16

Page 17

5. Outline of work

This work begins by a review of the relevant literature and concepts in Chapter Two. In thischapter, the overall relevance of this dissertation will be discussed followed by a look ateconomic development and poverty alleviation, the paradigms of alternative development, ruraldevelopment, and community development. Discussions on the conceptual backgrounds ofcommunity, social capital, and community capacity will follow. The last section of Chapter Twoexplains some community capacity building strategies including leadership development,organizational development, community organizing, and inter-organizational collaboration.

After the introduction to the theoretical background guiding this work, the practical conceptsof governance paradigms, practical formats, and trends are discussed in Chapter Three. Thesegovernance issues include democracy and participatory governance, local governance, anddecentralization and localization. The public administration section of Chapter Three looks atthe practical tools of the management cycle, the logic framework, and evaluation.

The fourth chapter of this dissertation covers the data collection methods used to obtain theinformation in this work. It outlines the research paradigms of post-modernism and postpositivism,as well as the reflexive and adaptive qualitative research approaches. The specificmodes of information collection in Japan, the Philippines, and from other sources are detailed.Support for the various data collection methods such as case studies, participant observation,action research, the use of photography, focus groups, interviews, and surveys is offered.

Chapter Five is the academic contribution of this dissertation in terms of conceptualdevelopment. Community is suggested as a suitable unit for analysis and policy formulation, aswell as an all-encompassing system with potential conceptualization on multiple levels. Thecommunity capacity framework from Chaskin and colleagues (2001) that is offered in ChapterTwo is expanded and amended to be more practical, useable and adaptable to rural anddeveloping communities. Case studies from rural Japan are examined in order to further clarifythe basic component of community capacity, its attributes, agents, and actions. Through thesecase studies the new concepts of community leadership and cyclical community capacityemerge. These conceptual explorations formulate the impetus for community-driven economics,which is discussed at the end of the chapter.

Chapter Six, is dedicated to the conceptual and practical development of localization andevaluation. The ways in which localization can be undertaken and its benefits are examinedthrough issues with evaluation in developing countries and case examinations of the JapanInternational Cooperation Agency (JICA)-Nepal Strengthening of Evaluation and MonitoringSystem (SMES) project and the localization of the MDGs in Jagna, Philippines.

The proceeding two chapters are dedicated to the field work and projects conducted inPagudpud, Philippines. Chapter Seven provides an introduction to the municipality, its initialpolicy structure and assessment of community capacity using traditional evaluation techniquessuch as interview and survey.

Chapter Eight is the second important contribution of this dissertation, the introduction of theunique methods of participatory photo and video evaluation. This chapter examines thetheoretical background that contributes to these methods and provides the basis for their successand contribution to governance and community capacity building, as well as their conceptualdesign. Then, the details of the trial cases for the methods of participatory photo and videoevaluation respectively, and their subsequent public exhibition are explored. The implications ofthe findings from these projects helps to build the picture of community capacity in Pagudpud, as

17

Page 18

well as points to the positive implications of employing these types of participatory evaluations,namely in terms of community capacity building and governance.

The last chapter of this work provides an overview of the entire dissertation, summarizing theliterature review and methods, answering the research questions, reiterating the work’scontributions to academia and practice, and discusses the further implications of the materialpresented here and future directions of this work.

18

Page 19

2. Development, Community, Social Capital, and Community Capacity

"W

e must rethink the financial system from scratch, as at Bretton Woods(Sarkozy, 2008).” The recent economic turmoil has brought some issuesto the forefront that have been apparent in development economics formore than a decade: structural adjustment programs are deeply flawed,investment to promote production for export has had negative effects on the poor (Friedmann,1992, p. 5), markets do not self-regulate (Greenspan, see Andrews, 2008), and governmentinterventions are necessary to promote sectoral growth and economic stability. With these issuesin mind, new economic ideologies are being discussed by leaders from around the world.

On October 8, 2008, as the world began to realize the full brunt of the financial crisis,Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said "the financial world crisis will need astrong regulation in the matter of financial markets and capital movements throughout the world.A new Bretton Woods will be needed." The recent financial crisis demonstrates the existence ofa global economy with pervasive links and effects. As Ms. Kirchner notes, due to the links ofthe global economy, there is a need for new strategies for regulation and global economicinfrastructure. This new thinking should be undertaken with a new emphasis on bothinternational links and the importance of all global stakeholders, no matter how small.

The Bretton Woods Institutes (BWIs) were an important first step in bringing order to theinternational economy. However, they were based on a few flawed ideas and assumptions. Oneof the most glaring issues is its power based organization that highly favors rich nations (Sachs,2005, p. 287), which typically leaves debtor countries virtually voiceless. As the globaleconomy grew the BWIs have been criticized for not being inclusive or truly participatory andoverly favoring rich nations.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a BWI, has borne criticism due to their pressure toforce structural changes modeled on first world economies and the propensity to leave ill-suitedgovernments, whom are often corrupt, debt laden at the expense of the quality of life of theirconstituents. IMF backed initiatives have led to riots, coups, and the collapse of public services(Sachs, 2005, p. 74). This in combination with academic and public outcry against some of thequestionable practices and tactics employed by the BWIs has led to a paradigm shift and a searchfor more effective approaches (Sachs, 2005, p. 74).

The perspective that wealthy nations take in the BWIs separates them from other nations.The world economic system has been modeled, molded, and promoted on the ideology of thedominant economies whilst assuming a sort of cultural or systemic superiority, rather thanrecognizing that their dominance may most likely stem from an accident of timing or geography(Sachs, 2005, p. 39). Furthermore, economically privileged nations are concerned withpreserving and promoting their economic interests, while other countries are primarily focusedon development and providing basic services to their citizens. It is this vast paradigmdiscrepancy that contributes to the malfunction of international economic institutions. Whilethere is much discussion on how to address the necessary changes to the international economicsystem from the first world perspective, this chapter seeks to offer the perspective of thechallenges and necessary changes through the scope of developing nations by placingdevelopment and sustainable livelihood as the a priori issues in international economic reform.

With the ever growing trend toward fractured societies, specialized communities, thewidening economic gap, and the highlighting of insiders and outsiders, something needs tochange in order to save us from ourselves. The idea that capitalism or democracy will save us is

19

Page 20

nearly dead; for too long we have been mired in the conversation about which political oreconomic paradigm is paramount, forgetting all the while about the details of human existencethat make any one of the popular paradigms palatable; long life, comfort, happiness, stability.These factors, the ones that each of the megaphone-mouth demagogues of their paradigms toutsas the reason they should be the dominant power, are the reasons that any of us 6 billion sheep inthe herd would even dare listen to the blaring discourse. These human factors are what we allsearch for in our daily lives and they can be found in our communities.

It is only now that the first world is learning what the second and third world learned a longtime ago: the principles of free market economics, trade imbalances and unbridled economicgains benefit few and exacerbate the income gap, leaving many dispossessed and in poverty(Collier, 2007; Friedmann, 1992; Sachs, 2005). The bulk of the poor, 67% as of 1998, live inAsia, particularly the southern and rural parts (Kanbur, Venables, & Wan, 2006, p. 1; Quibria,1993, p. 1).

Currently, the global financial system relies on the benevolence of the Group of Seven (G-7)and developing economies are no exception. If the G-7 are doing well then there is a“permissive environment for growing economic prosperity in other countries (Cooper, 2005, p.67).” However, if the first world has any sort of economic blip or panic then their benevolence iswithdrawn, often into protectionism and economic nationalism, and “…other countries wouldfind it difficult to sustain growing economic prosperity no matter how good their institutions andtheir policies were (Cooper, 2005, p. 67).” This is not a call to revert to planned economics;however, it is a referendum on the popular thinking of how both local and internationaleconomics and development should be undertaken.

Furthermore, there is a necessity to focus on poverty, and the economic development andadvancement of what Collier (2007) has called “the bottom billion,” the poorest billion people inthe world. Continuing to ignore this cadre of global citizens makes the entire world less secure,and more vulnerable to socio-political and economic instability (Collier, 2007, p. 3). The gapbetween the underdeveloped and the poorest of the poor is widening, with the average person inthe poorest society having an income that is only one-fifth of that of the average person in atypical developing country (Collier, 2007, p. 10). The World Bank (WB) has established therather arbitrary $1 a day poverty standard and later added the $2 a day indicator to describe lowincome around the globe (2002; 2003). There are 2.8 billion people in developing countriesliving on less than $2 a day (WB, 2003). However arbitrary the standard is, it helps to establishstatistics and indicators in the quest to address the needs of the poor. It is worth noting that theWB and other international donors have broadened their definition of poverty to include humandevelopment and quality of life (Cling, 2002, p. 29; WB, 2002, p. 2; WB, 2003, p. 2) and thisexpansion of the concept has begun to help in the process of domestic and international policymaking on development and poverty alleviation.

In addition to economic indicators of poverty, there are quality of life indicators thatdemonstrate stark contrasts in the ability of the bottom billion to escape poverty and otherwiselead lives deserving of human dignity. An example of this is can be found in the poors’ ability toaccess water and proper sanitation. According to the 2006 HDR, about 1.1 billion people indeveloping countries have inadequate access to water and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation(Watkins, 2006, p. 7). Among those without proper access to water, two-thirds live on less than$2 a day with the remaining one-third surviving on less than one dollar a day (Watkins, 2006, p.7). There are more than 660 million people without sanitation living on $2 a day with more than385 million living on less than one dollar a day (Watkins, 2006, p. 7). These facts are truly